Author Topic: Shutterstock takes action against spammers! (Read 28209 times)

Anja_Kaiser · « **on:** November 24, 2016, 12:24 »

Shutterstock just decided to eliminate title spamming! They have a list of the worst offenders, about 20 ports got already deleted and they're currently asking others to change their titles within the next week. If they don't, they'll be out.

AnTiImAgeX · « **Reply #1 on:** November 24, 2016, 13:07 »

That's good news!!!

kaboom · « **Reply #2 on:** November 24, 2016, 13:08 »

It took them six months to react. And during these six months, all spammers were cashing in, while decent contributors were losing money. Now 20 accounts got deleted... like a drop in the ocean considering the number of spammers probably reached hundreds during six months of SS allowing this practice...

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #3 on:** November 24, 2016, 13:41 »

Quote from: kaboom on November 24, 2016, 13:08

It took them six months to react. And during these six months, all spammers were cashing in, while decent contributors were losing money. Now 20 accounts got deleted... like a drop in the ocean considering the number of spammers probably reached hundreds during six months of SS allowing this practice...

yes, LOL
like the lazy barnboy closing the barn door after the cows escaped
... or the captain sailing away with the loots after discovering there is a hole at the bottom of the ship .

all for show to the english, as latino say.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #4 on:** November 24, 2016, 13:52 »

The could usefully ban a few people at the top of the Christmas "best match", I notice.

spike · « **Reply #5 on:** November 24, 2016, 15:50 »

They could fire some of the reviewers or people who do contributor portfolio management. If I had a stock agency, and things like this happened for 6 months, I wouldn't be mad at the people who are abusing the system, I'd be mad I obviously hired the wrong and incompetent people. From the reviewers to the coders who couldn't identify spammy portfolios by writing a script in 30 minutes and the management who perhaps hasn't communicated the problem to the coders. In the end, I'd fire myself since I'm obviously a douche who can't run a company. But yeah, not happening. They wanted these spammy accounts so that they could pay out less royalties and "touch up" their Q3 results.

Minsc · « **Reply #6 on:** November 24, 2016, 16:28 »

This is very good news. I understand their dilemma and why they hesitated. I'm glad they're following through and taking out the worst offenders. I still see a few offenders, so let's see if they comply. If they're smart, they bretter.

Law-abiding contributors should see a bump in sales in the upcoming weeks.

Anja_Kaiser · « **Reply #7 on:** November 24, 2016, 17:02 »

They continue working on it - those 20 were just a first signal to everyone else spamming titles.
SS also asked us to get the message out (like "fix it in the next couple of days or get out") in different languages. So feel free to spread the word through social media in English and/or your native language.

kaboom · « **Reply #8 on:** November 24, 2016, 17:31 »

We should get the message out? Dont they have a list of spammers and their email addresses? Shouldnt they have this list ready a few months ago? Instead of waiting and letting the problem spread..

Many of our images lost their position in search due to spammers and the position will never recover. If they acted sooner, this didnt have to happen. It affected our monthly payouts for many months.

So yeah, it is good they finally started to do something but there is a bitter taste to it and many unanswered questions.

I also dont think the accounts will be deleted. They will probably be only disabled. And maybe when they change the description, they will be reinstated and all their images will be back in their former positions?...

Dumc · « **Reply #9 on:** November 24, 2016, 17:38 »

Quote from: Anja_Kaiser on November 24, 2016, 17:02

They continue working on it - those 20 were just a first signal to everyone else spamming titles.
SS also asked us to get the message out (like "fix it in the next couple of days or get out") in different languages. So feel free to spread the word through social media in English and/or your native language.

Why would we spread the word. SS should just ban them immediately. Phuckem.

PureArt · « **Reply #10 on:** November 24, 2016, 17:44 »

Quote from: Minsc on November 24, 2016, 16:28

I understand their dilemma and why they hesitated.

What dilemma?

Minsc · « **Reply #11 on:** November 24, 2016, 18:18 »

Quote from: PureArt on November 24, 2016, 17:44

Quote from: Minsc on November 24, 2016, 16:28
I understand their dilemma and why they hesitated.

What dilemma?

Because SS could lose sales / revenue. In some cases, the images at are the top because it actually does have commercial value, not solely due to its spammy title.

They could see possibly millions of less images in the SS portfolio. I know some people want to see the ban hammer get slammed down hard, but SS allowed this to happen. People take advantage of systems all the time and people took advantage of what SS gave them.

Allowing them to change the titles or get banned is a good alternative.

Hundstage14 · « **Reply #12 on:** November 24, 2016, 19:11 »

I really want a explanation from the company why several month nothing happens and the contributors were ignored.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #13 on:** November 25, 2016, 02:09 »

Quote from: Hundstage14 on November 24, 2016, 19:11

I really want a explanation from the company why several month nothing happens and the contributors were ignored.

You won't get one........

alno · « **Reply #14 on:** November 25, 2016, 02:39 »

Don't expect Shutterstock would eliminate ALL those accounts. This is their money finally and many spammy titles allow those images pop up in higher Google search positions than the same images uploaded to Fotolia or Depositphotos for example (Am I right that huge spam title problem is Shutterstock only?) It's a balancing between being modern and responsible and losing total income.

Hundstage14 · « **Reply #15 on:** November 25, 2016, 04:18 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on November 25, 2016, 02:09

Quote from: Hundstage14 on November 24, 2016, 19:11
I really want a explanation from the company why several month nothing happens and the contributors were ignored.
You won't get one........

most likely

but: I really want a explanation from the company why several month nothing happens and the contributors were ignored.

DavidZydd · « **Reply #16 on:** November 25, 2016, 04:19 »

Quote from: Irina Anosova on November 25, 2016, 02:39

Don't expect Shutterstock would eliminate ALL those accounts. This is their money finally and many spammy titles allow those images pop up in higher Google search positions than the same images uploaded to Fotolia or Depositphotos for example (Am I right that huge spam title problem is Shutterstock only?) It's a balancing between being modern and responsible and losing total income.

Google ignores keyword stuffing for at least 10-15 years. Moreover, google penalizes it. So, SS loses money with it.

The whole thing is about a few bigheads in the board want to see a bigger number in image count... I'm sure that they have no idea, what this company does, like in almost every big companies...

Microstockphoto · « **Reply #17 on:** November 25, 2016, 04:26 »

Quote from: spike on November 24, 2016, 15:50

They could fire some of the reviewers or people who do contributor portfolio management. If I had a stock agency, and things like this happened for 6 months, I wouldn't be mad at the people who are abusing the system, I'd be mad I obviously hired the wrong and incompetent people. From the reviewers to the coders who couldn't identify spammy portfolios by writing a script in 30 minutes and the management who perhaps hasn't communicated the problem to the coders. In the end, I'd fire myself since I'm obviously a douche who can't run a company. But yeah, not happening. They wanted these spammy accounts so that they could pay out less royalties and "touch up" their Q3 results.

well put !

panicAttack · « **Reply #18 on:** November 25, 2016, 04:55 »

is it possible to see atleast one banned account that was linked on this forum as spammer before they ban him/her?

gyllens · « **Reply #19 on:** November 25, 2016, 06:41 »

About time they did something! after all these years I didnt even know that titles counted that much in a search? or do they?

Anja_Kaiser · « **Reply #20 on:** November 25, 2016, 10:28 »

Quote from: Minsc on November 24, 2016, 18:18

Quote from: PureArt on November 24, 2016, 17:44
Quote from: Minsc on November 24, 2016, 16:28
I understand their dilemma and why they hesitated.

What dilemma?

I know some people want to see the ban hammer get slammed down hard, but SS allowed this to happen. People take advantage of systems all the time and people took advantage of what SS gave them.

Allowing them to change the titles or get banned is a good alternative.

SS let this happen, but actually the spammers already had two warnings: First an email was sent out and the "Shutterstock's position on repeated words (...)" thread was published on the 7th of June (!) - plus an "update" on it. So, they actually *knew* this wasn't allowed. (And it's common sense somehow, anyway.) If I had to decide, ... well.

@panicAttack: I don't exactly know which ones were posted in here, but some of those which were mentioned on FB yesterday actually disappeared. (This one e.g.: https://www.shutterstock.com/pic-517018450/stock-vector-tree-tree-tree-tree-tree-tree-tree-tree-tree-tree-tree-tree-tree-tree-tree-tree-tree-tree-tree-tree-tree-tree-tree-tree-tree-tree-tree-tree-tree-tree-tree-tree-tree-tree-tree-tree-tree-tr.html?src=8iTfDcBidQCf9Jl-jY1UPg-1-0 Not only this particular image, but the entire port is gone - I checked that.) Yesterday was Thanksgiving in the US, though, I guess it'll yet take some time, as they started doing this manually. Wait and see.

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #21 on:** November 25, 2016, 11:00 »

Quote from: Irina Anosova on November 25, 2016, 02:39

Don't expect Shutterstock would eliminate ALL those accounts. This is their money finally and many spammy titles allow those images pop up in higher Google search positions than the same images uploaded to Fotolia or Depositphotos for example (Am I right that huge spam title problem is Shutterstock only?) It's a balancing between being modern and responsible and losing total income.

No they don't rank higher than FT or DP, it hurts them. Google blocks spammy titles and sites. The Google SEO is smart enough to put them on the bottom. This has been since 2000 or before. Why do people here invent information that's not fact,to support the superstition claims?

https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/66358?hl=en

https://www.seroundtable.com/google-keywords-duplicate-16716.html

John explained that he is repeating the same keyword over and over again, to the point where it is making it hard for Google to "recognize what's really unique & compelling" on that specific site.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #22 on:** November 25, 2016, 12:31 »

Quote from: Hundstage14 on November 24, 2016, 19:11

I really want a explanation from the company why several month nothing happens and the contributors were ignored.

To be honest I rather think its a waste of your energy if they did give an explanation you may well not believe it. I may be too fatalist but I think to survive in this environment its best to focus on what you can control.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #23 on:** November 25, 2016, 12:36 »

Quote from: Dumc on November 24, 2016, 17:38

Quote from: Anja_Kaiser on November 24, 2016, 17:02
They continue working on it - those 20 were just a first signal to everyone else spamming titles.
SS also asked us to get the message out (like "fix it in the next couple of days or get out") in different languages. So feel free to spread the word through social media in English and/or your native language.

Why would we spread the word. SS should just ban them immediately. Phuckem.

agree. more so that ss has this auto-delete duplicare keywords in the submission stage.
surely their IT can also use this method of eliminating portfolio with duplicating keywords in title and description, no???
they don't do that because ss really don't give a r@t$ass about it!!!

as like yyy has google SEO smart, surely ss can do the same... IF THEY WANT TO

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on November 25, 2016, 11:00

Google blocks spammy titles and sites. The Google SEO is smart enough to put them on the bottom.

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #24 on:** November 25, 2016, 19:14 »

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on November 25, 2016, 12:36

Quote from: Dumc on November 24, 2016, 17:38
Quote from: Anja_Kaiser on November 24, 2016, 17:02
They continue working on it - those 20 were just a first signal to everyone else spamming titles.
SS also asked us to get the message out (like "fix it in the next couple of days or get out") in different languages. So feel free to spread the word through social media in English and/or your native language.

Why would we spread the word. SS should just ban them immediately. Phuckem.

agree. more so that ss has this auto-delete duplicare keywords in the submission stage.
surely their IT can also use this method of eliminating portfolio with duplicating keywords in title and description, no???
they don't do that because ss really don't give a r@t$ass about it!!!

as like yyy has google SEO smart, surely ss can do the same... IF THEY WANT TO

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on November 25, 2016, 11:00
Google blocks spammy titles and sites. The Google SEO is smart enough to put them on the bottom.

Yes, the fact that SS can't figure out how to see 99 duplicate words in a title means, something is wrong. Terribly stupid and wrong.

I'm happy that Jon finally woke up after we've been writing and complaining for months. Why none of this went up the chain or got action action means they are either trying to program and haven't got it done, remember the faulty email. Or the usual paralysis of corporate kicked in. People afraid to expose a problem and tell the truth. Perfect yes men, in meetings, don't raise questions. How they can't see this when even the weakest computer people, can do a simple search and see the obvious.

I don't have any hint that they would do this intentionally to harm us and favor low pay new people. It's counter to the agencys own interests to force poor products to the front of the site. Unless they want to drive customers away? As this goes, you can't polish a turd. Buyers won't buy poor quality, just because it's first.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Shutterstock takes action against spammers! (Read 28209 times)

Anja_Kaiser

AnTiImAgeX

kaboom

etudiante_rapide

BaldricksTrousers

spike

Minsc

Anja_Kaiser

kaboom

Dumc

PureArt

Minsc

Hundstage14

Pauws99

alno

Hundstage14

DavidZydd

Microstockphoto

panicAttack

gyllens

Anja_Kaiser

YadaYadaYada

Pauws99

etudiante_rapide

YadaYadaYada

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors